Genealogy Chat

Top tip - using the Genes Reunited community

Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!

  • The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
  • You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
  • And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
  • The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.

Boards

Quick Search

Single word search

Tools

Findmypast DNA Banner

Icons

  • New posts
  • No new posts
  • Thread closed
  • Stickied, new posts
  • Stickied, no new posts

If this the worst transcribing ever?

Login to Add Reply Watch This
ProfilePosted byOptionsPost Date

Vicky

Vicky Report 27 Jul 2006 14:53

I have a rellie transcribed as Alice... actual name Abel is quite legible (to me anyway LOL) he is described as SON Age is shown in the Male column, working as a gun ?finisher I agree, a bit of common sense would be most welcome. Or did the person who did the transcription really think Alice was a boy's name? Sometimes I think they were just taking the p*** & put whatever took their fancy.

~*~~*Sylvie*~~*~

~*~~*Sylvie*~~*~ Report 27 Jul 2006 14:17

i found grt grt aunt frances-dau in one census but ten years earlier she was down as francis-son.......i laughed as i didnt realise they could do sex changes in them days..lol sylvia

Researching:
Searles, Owens, Molineux, Whitttaker, Prince, Rendle Wilson, Mercer Brown, Williams, Brereton, Eyers, Revell, Crompton, Tattersall, Whittle,

Unknown

Unknown Report 27 Jul 2006 13:28

Yes, I've found Jane and James mixed up - which surely the male/female column on the census would have made clear?

*** Fuzzy

*** Fuzzy Report 27 Jul 2006 13:10

I have a Lombard that is actually a lambert, I also have a head of house who is listed as Jane when it should be James and the columns are correct ie he is listed as a man, as you say Nell a little common sense would help!! fuzzy x

Unknown

Unknown Report 27 Jul 2006 08:04

Names are sometimes unusual and transcribers can't tell what they are meant to be, but some transcriptions are just stupid. Found an ancester Sarah yesterday, described as a 'son' to the head of household. a) her first name is a girl's name b) her surname isn't the same as the head of household, a man, which would make me think twice c) her age is in the female column and d) it says 'serv' not 'son'. A little common sense would be a useful thing!

BobClayton

BobClayton Report 27 Jul 2006 08:03

Site is down until '4 AM Mountain Time' whenever that is. Bob

Researching:
Clayton

Elizabeth

Elizabeth Report 27 Jul 2006 04:15

I've got one as well. Try the 1891 surname: Felelkniol. It is actually Melhuish. But at least now they've added my 'other name' to it.

Gem in Wakefield

Gem in Wakefield Report 27 Jul 2006 00:39

Lol! How could they transcribe it as Eorizid?

Mavis

Mavis Report 27 Jul 2006 00:25

If you're not on 'pay per view' with Ancestry (or if you can afford to pay just for curiousity). In the 1891 census type 'Eorizid' (there is only one!!!) in the forename, look at the scan and tell me how it was transcribed as that!!!!!! Thank goodness she wasn't a widow living with a daughter that I didn't know the married name of, I don't think I'd ever have found her!! lol Mavis